Kim Davis Case A Religious Liberty Loser

Some conservatives say that Kim Davis as a public official has to carry out court orders, even those she believes to be immoral, or quit. Yet the course she took has undeniably advanced her cause in our unending culture war.

For she rallied and inspired many with her witness, defiance, and willingness to go to jail. She set an example of nonviolent resistance. She treated same-sex marriage not as some great social leap forward, but as a moral abomination. Many among the silent majority were surely nodding in approval.

She has also exposed the breadth and depth of the division in the country between an older Christian America and new Secular America.

And:

Indeed, from the raw politics of the Summer of Trump, it seems clear that Middle America has come to believe it has been had, and that the state that rules the nation is hostile to the country they love, and needs to be resisted and defied.

62 percent of those polled support jailing people for contempt of court; only 15 percent said they opposed it

Of Republicans polled, 64 percent said they supported jailing people for contempt of court

Strong majorities in every demographic category (except for African-Americans) supported jailing people for contempt of court The region where support for jailing them was strongest? The South, Kim Davis’s home region

An overall majority of people (53 percent) believe religious liberty is under threat in America. Four out of five Republicans believe that, and 55 percent of Independents do. The only demographics that didn’t believe that? Democrats, those making over $100K per year, and those living in the Midwest (though in the Midwestern case, it was a plurality).

A slight overall majority (52 percent) believes that elected officials should not be given a religious exemption from doing their job, though the numbers break down along partisan and regional lines. Republicans alone among the political orientations are divided equally.

Majorities in all regions except the South believe elected officials should be required do their jobs regardless of their conscience — and in the South, the “do your job” faction polled a 47 percent plurality, versus 38 percent of Southerners who believe in the conscience deferment, and 16 percent who aren’t sure.

An overall majority said Kim Davis, in particular, ought to have gone to jail for contempt of court. Interestingly, Republicans, who answered generically that someone in Davis’s position should go to jail, were evenly split when Davis’s name came up.

Big majorities across every demographic category say that Kim Davis ought to resign as a matter of principle. It’s not even close. Only 22 percent of people say she should keep her job and remain defiant

To summarize: most Americans believe religious liberty is at risk in America today, but they do not believe that as an elected official, Kim Davis has a plausible religious liberty claim in this case. They believe the judge was right to send her to jail, and believe that she ought to resign.

There is no Buchananite “silent majority.” Buchanan says that Davis “undeniably advanced her cause” in the culture war, and I can agree with that, as long as the emphasis is on the word “her.” She has also advanced Mike Huckabee’s bid to become the Jesse Jackson of white conservative Evangelicals. But she has in no way advanced the cause of protecting religious liberty — a cause that for now, according to the poll results, remains popular.

Think of it: most people in this country are (rightly) worried about the future of religious liberty. But if “religious liberty” comes to mean in the public’s mind “the right of elected officials to refuse to obey the law when their conscience tells them not to,” we Christians are going to lose down the road, and we are going to lose big.

Gretchen says:
September 18, 2015 at 4:04 am
Jeff: I’ve got to come back to this shotgun marriage idea. You cite the wellbeing of the woman. Do you really think it’s a good thing for a woman to be forced to marry a man who doesn’t want any part of her?

Gretchen, do you really think it’s a good thing for a woman to have sex willingly with a man who only wants THAT part of her? Who’s not invested to her?

Holy s**t, woman. Thank you for illustrating in your lack of logic.

Yes, Olivia, it’s 2015. “Get with the times,” I suspect is your point? The times dictates such illogic as above, upon which you were raised, as is evident in your posts. No thanks. I’ll stick to objective truth.

Anglocat says:
September 16, 2015 at 8:26 am
This last set of comments has really emphasized my earlier point: how do you expect gays and their allies to make peace with the Fran Macadams or Jeff’s in our polity, knowing that they will not make peace with them? It’s asking a level of grace that they are utterly unwilling to extend.

Far from finding your us of the term legsl fiction offensive, I find it helpful to clarify the differences in our points of view and to possible reduce the distance between us. (Yes, I’m a lawyer; straight white male, FWIW). The secular legal convention of civil marriage–or legal fiction, if you prefer, I agree the term isn’t a pejorative–brings with it certain secular legal rights and obligations which have been limited to heterosexual marriages traditionally, along with the other legal burdens that were placed on homosexual couples, including criminalization (prior to Lawrence v. Texas), discrimination in housing and employment, social stigmatization including gay-bashing and non-enforcement of criminal laws against assault when assaults were committed against GLBTs. (It was coming upon the victim of a gay-bashing on the street that woke me up to the serious harms gays lived with even in “liberal” New York City in the 1990s). Now, to me, these have all the indicia of a class entitled to enhanced Equal Protection scrutiny under Carolene Products footnote 4. That’s where my analysis starts, and my earlier analogy to Loving–that a bar against interracial marriage isn’t neutral even thoigh it affects both whites and blacks, because its purpose is to reinforce the civil inequality of the protected class.

But this logic only goes to purely secular legal rights and status–the legal fiction, as you have said. Marriage under any religious tradition is solely for that tradition to define and interpret.

I know you won’t agree with the first part, so I won’t repeat the other points I made in our prior conversation. But I did want to point to our agreement on the limited meaning of civil marriage, and on the right of faith traditions to enforce by community sanctions—not invoking the civil power–their own understanding of marriage within their communities within very broad limits. (I mean, no abrogation of civil rape laws, coercion, etc.)

Which brings me to Fran.

No, I don’t want your side to submit to my side, any more than I want mine to submit to yours. We liberals have things to learn from traditionalists. We are sometimes so concerned for process that we lack on substance, sometimes err in thinking our own judgments of right and wrong are too obviously and categorically irrefutable. We need conservatives to point out the value of tradition and what has worked in the past, and should not be lightly modified.

But my question to you and Jeff stands: what space in the civil square will you allow those who disagree with you? If you truly believe that error has no rights, and are willing to use the civil law to enforce your vision of truth, how can we live together in peace?

We liberals need to make room for traditionalists to live in harmony with their consciences, but, with all respect, you need to do the same for those whose thought you hate, or its Reformation-Counter-Reformation time all over again.

My mention of the gay-bashing victim I met and its effect on me is not to suggest in any way that I think either of you would not have been equally appalled by such an event, even if it didn’t lead you to the sort of reexamination it led me. That should go without saying, but I don’t want to leave either of you thinking that I don’t do you the justice of believing you to be compassionate people despite our disagreements.

In your storybook fantasy, married people do their best to be good spouses and parents. In reality, many, many people are jerks, and people who find themselves involved with jerks thankfully now have a way out that wasn’t available to them before.

This is why I can’t go along with Erin Manning’s caustic criticism of divorce laws. I agree, marriage should be a carefully considered life long commitment. A married couple that hits a speed bump or a rocky stretch should take a deep breath, count to ten, recognize that even if we did promise each other a rose garden, it might not always grow well, there may be an infestation of Japanese beetles, and into every life a little rain must fall — in fact the roses would die without it. The grass may LOOK greener on the other side of the fence, but seriously, it will have all the same problems, life ain’t perfect.

But, there ARE not a few abusive men who no woman would want to hang around, certainly not share his bed, home, meals, and finances, and subjecting the kids to him would be child abuse. The machinery of The State is not up to the task of parsing which divorce petitions are “worthy” and when the couple should be sent back to make a good faith attempt to work things out as mature adults.

So, we have to rely on people who can to make the effort, leave room for people who can’t or won’t to split, and of course churches can go right on teaching why and how a marriage should be held together for life… and hopefully help some people do so. Many mistakes will be made — aren’t they always when human beings are making decisions or issuing decrees?

Anglocat, it certainly does go without saying that you would do either, both, or all of us the justice of believing we are compassionate people, despite our disagreements. But I appreciate that you went the extra mile of formally saying so.

FWIW, I firmly support the reasoning of Lawrence v. Texas. I think Justice Kennedy’s rhetoric betrayed a lot of unnecessary flourishes, but the fundamental point was sound. I was relieved that the case was decided as a matter of the right to privacy, not the equal protection of the laws. That should have insulated us against the travesty of Obergefell, which I am fond of saying will be overturned for the same reason as Bowers v. Hardwick: it was wrongly decided.

To the extent that people who are romantically drawn to people of their own sex are subjected to retaliation or discrimination in matters that don’t pertain to sex, per se, and it does happen, I am entirely in favor of providing whatever legal protection may be necessary. It is not because they are gay, that they are entitled to protection, but because there are those who make “gay” an issue.

I have some visceral sympathy with the woman in Colorado who argued (prior to the Roemer decision) that you shouldn’t have special protections because of the way you have sex. But, the only reason to establish such protections is if there are those who are making an issue of “the way you have sex” to diminish a person’s rights or options.

However, when it comes to marriage laws, I don’t see any discrimination whatsoever. I believe those fighting in court to sustain traditional marriage statutes missed the boat in accepting that, yes, there is discrimination, but the rational basis for discriminating is… There is no discrimination, period.

I looked up Carolene Footnote 4, which I must say I was not familiar with. I find it a rather strained and tenuous authority for the way you are using it. I think our legal jurisprudence is a bit TOO full of stringing together a potpourri of citations, when a straightforward foundation could be made without such confusing minutiae… but taking Carolene 4 on its face, it merely outlines some possible future areas of concern that the court might treat differently.

Legislation that restricts political processes, discriminates against minorities, or contravenes a specifically enumerated constitutional liberty, the Court said, may be subject to “more searching judicial scrutiny.”

Marriage laws do not discriminate against minorities, much less contravene a specifically enumerated constitutional liberty. The species comes in two sexes, men and women. The very concept of homosexuality presumes this division. Can one imagine a population of sentient hydras pondering the notion of “gay” and “straight”? Marriage laws concern, not a certain fraction of the population, but a certain well established relation between men and women. Every man, and every woman, is free to enter into it. The fact that some do not wish to enter into this relation was not even contemplated, much less disparaged.

As for Loving, racial discrimination in marriage is invidious precisely because race has nothing to do with marriage. The authors of anti-miscegenation laws knew darn well that a man of one color and a woman of another color were entirely capable of marrying. That’s why they wrote detailed laws to forbid it. To be crude, people designated as black and people designated as white do it exactly the same way, with all the same possible permutations — which the state does not unduly inquire into.

To blithely say “If the law cannot discriminate on the basis of race, by forbidding a white man to marry a black woman, therefore it cannot discriminate on the basis of sex, by forbidding a man to marry a man,” makes a mockery of the notion of being “on all fours.” First, there were two factors in Loving, sex and race, but only one in Obergefell, sex. Race is irrelevant to marriage, but marriage is indeed all about sex.

One of my favorite examples is that while discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation is almost always invidious — it really has nothing to do with job competence or aptitude — this would not be true if the job was that of a legal prostitute at a brothel in Nevada. One can hardly expect a customer to accept any prostitute, male or female, because “the law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in employment.” Unlike, say, making partner at a law firm, or being an engineer, or a long-haul truck driver, sex is of the essence when the job is prostitute.

There is nothing similarly situated between a heterosexual marriage and a gay couple. Its just that at some point in time, a significant number of gays decided they wanted the validation of a marriage license, as proof that society accepted them. They have a constitutional right to be left alone. They do not have a constitutional right to the approbation of the community.

But my question to you and Jeff stands: what space in the civil square will you allow those who disagree with you? If you truly believe that error has no rights, and are willing to use the civil law to enforce your vision of truth, how can we live together in peace?.

As it specifically pertains to gay marriage, prior to intervention by Federal courts there was nothing that needed to be enforced by civil law. Despite what the media says, there were no laws that banned/ criminalized so called “gay marriage.” There were no gay couples who were fined or imprisoned for having a gay wedding ceremony. The laws clarified for legal purposes that marriage was defined as a union between one man and one woman. And all of this was a response due to the Massachusetts state Supreme Court imposing “gay marriage” onto their state back in 2003. Note that since Obergefell so called “gay marriage” has been imposed onto all of us and we are required by law to accept it. If we chose not to, your societal values will be enforced onto us by civil law. This is typical Leftist projection. They claim that we impose our religious values into them (although hardly no one advocated jailing gays for pretending that they are married) but they are willing impose their values onto others through force law.

From a broader perspective there is a question of what constitutes society and nationhood. At the very least, both should consist of a group of people with shared values. The laws of any society reflects that shared value system. As long as there are shared values, there is little conflict within society. Yes, there are conflicts between individuals but there should not be two or more competing value systems within a society. Otherwise, that society will be highly dysfunctional. This is why whole issue of “gay marriage” is so perplexing to me. Twenty-five to thirty years ago everyone (straight /gay/religious/secular) had a common understanding what constituted marriage (1 man + 1 woman). On this one issue we all had a shared understanding.There were no conflicts or competing interest. Why wasn’t this good enough? LGBTs represent 1.8% of the U.S. population. Of this, only a minority will seek “marriage.” In other words, this issue serves the interest of a minority of a small minority. I thought the Left was concerned with the General Will and the Common Good. How was the common good served by introducing conflict into society in order to advance the interest of a minority of a small minority? Why was “social justice” valued over social harmony? My guess is that the Left hates religion (especially Christianity) more than it loves having a cohesive society. They have sought to expunge religion from every aspect of public life. They apparently sniffed some religious basis associated with real marriage and therefore marriage itself had to be debased. The Left’s dogged advocacy of “gay marriage” was part of their war on Christianity. The cheers and celebration when Obergefell decision was announced wasn’t a celebration for gays. It was a celebration that the last vestiges of Christianity has been expunged from civil law.

Now that the Left has won the war, they are out to win the peace. That means we all have to be psychologically conditioned to accept “gay marriage.” That’s why I disagree with Rod that it is possible to grovel to the Left for religious freedom. They cannot let us have this. “Gay marriage” is a lie. It’s an invented piece of fiction that’s been imposed onto all of us by a clique of cultural elites. In order for us to believe that lie, no “respectable” person can be allowed to tell the truth. Religious freedom exemptions confer some measure of respectability to opposition to “gay marriage” and that’s why it will be fought tooth and nail by the Left.

I won’t rehash our prior discussions, as we simply disagree on the analysis, while (I believe) understanding each other’s contentions. But I did want to address Carolene Products because I didn’t want to leave the impression that my use of it was original; it’s become the primary source of “tiered scrrutiny” in Equal Protection jurisprudence, and undergirds quite a lot of cases (including the sex discrimination cases like Frontiero v Richardson and Orr v Orr). It’s analysis has become so engrained that it isn’t cited all that much any more.

Two law review essays (articles is a bit rich ffor pieces so long) that address its application to treatment of gays and lesbians, one asserting that a Carolene Products class should apply, one asserting the contrary, both agree on the centrality of footnote 4 to the jurisprudence of the Court up through the Burger Era:

I think they’re both pretty good, even though I don’t agree with Strauss’s conclusion.

Jeff,

Thanks for your reply. It’s true, as far as I know, that nobody advocated jailing gays for asserting they could marry, but the problem was that many long term unions would be devastated when one partner grew sick or died–health care decisions would be made by often long-estranged family members, personal property and homes (apartments, especially) would be lost, and the long-time partner and caregiver shut out even from the funeral. Some states allowed for some degree of contracting around these issues, some did not; the federal government did not at all. So gays were both prevented from marrying and penalized for not being married. At the height of the AIDS epidemic, the cost was often quite brutal.

Yes, it effects a very small percentage of the population. But that’s one of the reasons for the lack of understanding of your side’s position by many on my side of the ledger: preventing serious devastation of the lives of a few people just doesn’t seem to carry any real cost in social cohesion.

I’m a deacon in my church, Jeff. I’m a Christian, and I passionately beleive that we are all sinners in need of redemption. I’m not out to destroy religion–I’m an ordained minister who says the creed without any reservation. But I celebrated Windsor and then Obergefell, because they meant that these injustices could be stopped. (I live in a state that enacted same sex marriage into law by vote of the elected branches, so Obergefell didn’t effect my immediate neighbors.)

My denomination (Episcopalian) is feeling its way on what to do about same sex marriages–some dioceses allow them, some do not. Although I favor it, I understand the religious views of those who do not, and believe that the Constitution protects their right to act on that belief. I believe that most liberals would agree–but if they don’t, I’m against them on that point. The unanimous Court in Hosanna-Tabor was pretty clear that a “ministerial exception” exists under the First Amendment, which shoudl apply to prevent any church from being forced into performing a wedding that violates its tenets:

Thanks for your reply. It’s true, as far as I know, that nobody advocated jailing gays for asserting they could marry, but the problem was that many long term unions would be devastated when one partner grew sick or died–health care decisions would be made by often long-estranged family members, personal property and homes (apartments, especially) would be lost, and the long-time partner and caregiver shut out even from the funeral. Some states allowed for some degree of contracting around these issues, some did not; the federal government did not at all. So gays were both prevented from marrying and penalized for not being married. At the height of the AIDS epidemic, the cost was often quite brutal.

This argument is a red herring fallacy. If this were the true issue then it could have been addressed by proper estate planning and assigning their partner as Medical Power of Attorney. If these measures were insufficient then there was a legislative route that could have been sought to redress these issues without redefining the definition of marriage. But this wasn’t the real issue. Gays aren’t pleading for hospital visits and property transfer. They are demanding marriage license and that their partnerships be given the same legal and social status as real marriage. Paul Varnell best described what the issue of gay “rights” is about.

“So the gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people’s view of homosexuality.”

Yes, it effects a very small percentage of the population. But that’s one of the reasons for the lack of understanding of your side’s position by many on my side of the ledger: preventing serious devastation of the lives of a few people just doesn’t seem to carry any real cost in social cohesion.

As stated previously, there are means to address these issues. And where the existing means were insufficient, the legislative route was available to redress these issues without having to redefine marriage. Therefore, so called “gay marriage” was not necessary to address any of the “injustices” you cited. But this was never objective of the “gay marriage” movement. It was about imposing social acceptance for their lifestyle onto society at large.

But what about people on your side’s understanding of our position? Check out the following video. A person presents a very objective and well thought out position as to why “gay marriage” renders marriage meaningless. After you watch the video, read the comments. When this video was uploaded, the gay mob and their allies went on the attack. They didn’t bother trying to intellectually refute the arguments presented. They went on to personally attack the author of the video.

These people are your allies. You can’t disown them. The only way for public opinion to be shifted for gay “rights” is for traditionalist to have been marginalized. There was a concerted media campaign to promote “gay marriage” and to marginalized traditionalist. You don’t think so? The following is the WaPo response to a question concerning its overwhelmingly pro “gay marriage” stance

“The reason that legitimate media outlets routinely cover gays is because it is the civil rights issue of our time.

Furthermore

As for accuracy, should the media make room for racists, i.e. those people who believe that black people shouldn’t marry white people? Any story on African-Americans wouldn’t be wholly accurate without the opinion of a racist, right?

Therefore, according to the media all objection to “gay marriage” is based on irrational hatred and bigotry and is fundamentally no different than those who oppose interracial marriage. As demonstrated in the video above, no matter how thoughtful, truthful, well meaning, or logical one is , the gay “rights” movement will come after anyone who opposes their agenda.

And regarding this video, do you have any objections to the arguments presented as to why “gay marriage” renders marriage meaningless?

I’m a deacon in my church, Jeff. I’m a Christian, and I passionately beleive that we are all sinners in need of redemption. I’m not out to destroy religion–I’m an ordained minister who says the creed without any reservation.

Everything you say beyond this point contradicts this.

But I celebrated Windsor and then Obergefell, because they meant that these injustices could be stopped. (I live in a state that enacted same sex marriage into law by vote of the elected branches, so Obergefell didn’t effect my immediate neighbors.)

As I stated earlier, those “injustices” could have been addressed without redefining marriage.

My denomination (Episcopalian) is feeling its way on what to do about same sex marriages–some dioceses allow them, some do not.

That’s because your denomination doesn’t follow and serve God. The Biblical position on homosexuality is unambiguous (it’s an abomination). From the quote by Paul Varnell, the objective of the gay “rights” movement has been to change the public’s moral perception on homosexuality. The Episcopal Church has conscientiously decided to reject Biblical morality and adopt the morality of the gay “rights” movement. In doing so, the Episcopal Church no longer serves and worships the one true God but instead worships the Left’s false god of degeneracy. Let’s call him Dildolech. If your church worshiped God, there is no way the Episcopal Church would even consider conducting a ceremony that infers God’s approval. There is absolutely no Biblical bases for God approving any homosexual union. Homosexuality is considered by Him to be an abomination. But because the Episcopal Church now worships Dildolech, they conduct “gay marriages” without moral reservation. Your church has turned a moral vice into a moral virtue.

Although I favor it, I understand the religious views of those who do not

You stated above that you are a Christian. If you are then who are those with religious views that don’t favor gay marriage? Are they non-Christians? Although you favor “gay marriage,” as a Christian do you believe that you are free to make your own judgements or do you believe that you are to obey God’s will? If it is the former, you don’t even follow the religion you profess to believe in.

Jeff–the reason there was impetus for going the whole nine-yards for equality in marriage is that the Power-of-Attorney and contract stuff wasn’t working. There were at least a few cases where a hospital totally ignored the Power of Attorney and barred the individual from entering the hospital. And when your companion is on his deathbed, you don’t have time to wrangle through the courts, nor should you have to.

The chance for carving out separate legislation affecting same-sex couples closed when quite a few religious groups made it very obvious that ANY step towards accommodating same-sex couples would be fiercely fought.

Basically, your own side shot holes in the boat, and now is complaining because they ended up sinking it. I predict the same outcome from the Kim Davis case: optics matter.

1. Grumpy Realist has pointed out the basic flaw in your argument that civil marriage rights were unnecessary; every effort to exercise contract and other such rights were fiercely fought against by SoCons, with the result that a higher level of protection had to be sought–only to be fought against by SoCons even more fiercely, etc, etc, etc.

2. Yes, my side has extremeists who are deplorable in the rhetoric and their judgmentalism. So does yours. The complimernts are mutual. I deplore those on my side.

3. What do I call Christians who believe that SSM is against the will of God? Christians. Anyone who believes in the Creeds is my brother or sister in Christ. We may disagree, even vehemently, more shame on us, but it is a disagreement among Christians. In those disagreements, I try not to judge those who disagree with me as heretics or apostates. (You will excuse me if I don’t find your “Dildolech” gibe in good taste or helpful.) I get that you think I and my fellow Episcopalians who accept SSM are guilty of heresy–but where do you stand on usury? We can all play that game.

3. We’re all interpreting the Scriptures, and there is no such thing as an easy answer. The Church erred for centuries on the treatment of women, on slavery, and on other issues. Usury is condemned three times as often in the Bible as is homosexuality. Bankers in your church? Hedge fund managers? Mortgage brokers? You may have picked sexual ethics as the defining point in scripture, but that does not make you possessed of superior knowledge of the will of God. Fidelity to scripture isn’t as easy as obeying the parts that are easy for dominant social groups (eg, straight guys) to follow and ignoring the hard stuff. We’re to pick up our *own* cross and follow Him, not assign someone else their burden based upon our reading of Scripture. Hence “Judge not, that ye be not judged,” and “let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” Jesus urges us explicitly to be very careful whom we judge and with whom we pick fights; the dubious pleasures of self-righteousness are unchristian in themselves.

P.S. Jeff–isn’t it somewhat arrogant saying you know who serves God and who doesn’t? I’m sure I could root around and find statements from some other religious sect of Christianity who was equally convinced that they were Absolutely Correct and that it was YOU that were the heretics and should be convicted and “carried out to the place of execution and have the head cut off from the shoulders so that the spirit depart forthwith.” Or burned at the stake–another very popular remedy.

In fact, I’ve described about 1000 years of European history right there.

(sigh). Righteous Christians might get a bit more of a hearing if they toned down the righteousness a bit, listened more than they spoke, carefully considered the arguments of the other side, and contemplated more the possibility that they might be wrong and not the ones in charge of policing everyone else’s morals. Chastising other members of your own congregation is one thing. Chastising other people who aren’t even your religion turns you into a meddling holier-than-thou busybody.

[NFR: Point taken, but do you realize how much you gripe about the way Christians and conservatives talk and act? You complain about this all the time. I think it must make you happy. — RD]

grumpy realist says:
September 24, 2015 at 12:18 pm
Jeff–the reason there was impetus for going the whole nine-yards for equality in marriage is that the Power-of-Attorney and contract stuff wasn’t working. There were at least a few cases where a hospital totally ignored the Power of Attorney and barred the individual from entering the hospital. And when your companion is on his deathbed, you don’t have time to wrangle through the courts, nor should you have to.

Exactly how many are a “few cases?” Is it the literal three or is it synonymous with “isolated cases?” If it is just a “few cases” then there is nothing fundamentally wrong with Medical/ Healthcare Power of Attorney laws. For the “few cases” where it wasn’t effective the laws could have been enhanced to ensure the true intent was better met. If Medical/Healthcare Power of Attorney was denied regularly and not just in a “few cases” then it is a useless legal product. If this were the case, it would not be used as often and as broadly as it is.

The chance for carving out separate legislation affecting same-sex couples closed when quite a few religious groups made it very obvious that ANY step towards accommodating same-sex couples would be fiercely fought.

Basically, your own side shot holes in the boat, and now is complaining because they ended up sinking it. I predict the same outcome from the Kim Davis case: optics matter.

Shooting holes in a boat had nothing to do with it. The optics are controlled by the mass media, which includes news and entertainment. There was a major media campaign to normalize homosexuality. It was put in movies and on TV. The media ran a one sided propaganda campaign to push for gay marriage. They didn’t even bother masking which side of the issue they were on. They control The Narrative. And The Narrative is that either you support “gay marriage” or else you were a bigot. To better frame the one sided debate, the gay lobby strategically sought to make an example of those with the “wrong” position on gay marriage. With the help of the LA Times, they were able to access the names of people who contributed to the groups supporting the “gay marriage ban” referendum in California. People were harassed by gay rights activist and Brendan Eich lost his job. And there were the cases of the baker and photographer who were penalized five and six figure judgments for not accommodating gay weddings. The media even went out of their way to identify heretics to the new orthodoxy in order to harass and dox them. They even conjured up an outrage campaign against laws to protect religious liberty. Read my previous post. To the media gay marriage was the civil rights campaign of our time. In order to affirm their self-righteousness, we were made to be the villain. So the optics was a multi-billion dollar gay “rights” campaign. But pat yourself on the back and keep thinking that your side won due to the righteousness of your cause.

Sorry–a correction to my last. Anyone who believes in Jesus as the Son of God and tries to follow what the disciples called the Way is my brother or sister in Christ. The creeds capture that well, while also eliminating a lot of heresies that are largely not around these days.

Anglocat says: September 24, 2015 at 7:00 pm Jeff, 1. Grumpy Realist has pointed out the basic flaw in your argument that civil marriage rights were unnecessary; every effort to exercise contract and other such rights were fiercely fought against by SoCons, with the result that a higher level of protection had to be sought–only to be fought against by SoCons even more fiercely, etc, etc, etc.

I have already answered grumpy realist’s post. The “few cases” where gays were denied Medical/Healthcare Power of Attorney doesn’t demonstrate that the laws are fundamentally flawed. The laws could have been modified and/or supplemented to better meet the intent of Medical/Healthcare Power of Attorney

2. Yes, my side has extremeists who are deplorable in the rhetoric and their judgmentalism. So does yours. The complimernts are mutual. I deplore those on my side.

Without the extremist on your side you wouldn’t have won. Unlike the extremist on my side, the extremist on your side had power, money and organization. Your extremist worked in Hollywood, major newsrooms, academia, courts, and major corporations. Gay Marriage was imposed on the US by the cultural overlords who rule over us. You can call these people deplorable but in reality you should be thanking them. They gave you what you wanted.

3. What do I call Christians who believe that SSM is against the will of God? Christians. Anyone who believes in the Creeds is my brother or sister in Christ. We may disagree, even vehemently, more shame on us, but it is a disagreement among Christians. In those disagreements, I try not to judge those who disagree with me as heretics or apostates. (You will excuse me if I don’t find your “Dildolech” gibe in good taste or helpful.) I get that you think I and my fellow Episcopalians who accept SSM are guilty of heresy–but where do you stand on usury? We can all play that game.

That was a rhetorical question I was asking. There is no basis for SSM to be found in 2000 years of Christian theology. For your denomination to “bless” in God’s name something that He condemns as an abomination is the height of heresy. Much of my passion regarding this issue is due to concern that His Church will be corrupted by society. Hollywood, the Media, academia can corrupt society but these atheist/secularist cannot corrupt the Church. The Church can only be corrupted from within. That’s why I find what your denomination does to be exponentially more evil. For Hollywood to promote homosexuality in a movie is one thing but for a “Christian” church to proclaim that God blesses homosexual unions is satanic. Thankfully your church is dying.

3. We’re all interpreting the Scriptures, and there is no such thing as an easy answer. The Church erred for centuries on the treatment of women, on slavery, and on other issues. Usury is condemned three times as often in the Bible as is homosexuality. Bankers in your church? Hedge fund managers? Mortgage brokers? You may have picked sexual ethics as the defining point in scripture, but that does not make you possessed of superior knowledge of the will of God. Fidelity to scripture isn’t as easy as obeying the parts that are easy for dominant social groups (eg, straight guys) to follow and ignoring the hard stuff.

This is a typical tactic from the gay rights movement. I call it the diversion tactic. The purpose is to put your opponent on the defensive by forcing them to defend something that has nothing to do with “gay marriage” or homosexuality. I can tell that you are reading from the same playbook. But I will answer your question. I have been researching the biblical position on usury. The first question is how is usury defined. Is it charging excessive interest or is it charging any interest at all? In the Old Testament it prohibits a wealthy person to charge interest to a poor brother but allows charging to outsiders. Therefore, charging of any interest itself is not prohibited by the OT. I do believe that it is immoral to charge excessive interest and to take advantage of the poor. For example, many of these title loan shops charge a 300% interest rate. The interest rate is excessive and they do take advantage of the poor. There is very little risk to the lender since he has title to the car as collateral. Most poor people can barely afford the interest payments and many lose their car. Loan sharking is another form of usury. People who are involved in various financial schemes and manipulation should also repent and refrain.

Now that I’ve answered your diversionary question, please provide a scriptural basis for SSM. As they told me in my college math and physics classes, show your steps. Go through the progression as to how the scriptures you claim to adhere to support homosexuality. Why hasn’t it been found in the Bible in 2000 years? And why is it that the Episcopal Church that has found it and not any other. Also, is it just a coincidence that the Episcopal Church has “found” the scriptural basis for SSM and the morality of homosexuality at the same time secular society has accepted homosexuality?

We’re to pick up our *own* cross and follow Him, not assign someone else their burden based upon our reading of Scripture.

Who is “Him?” Is it Christ that you’re following or is it His Vileness, Dildolech? As far as I can tell, the Episcopal Church is following secular society rather that Christ. I don’t think the Episcopal Church’s epiphany on homosexuality and SSM and society’s acceptance of both is a coincidence. You might like to be told that your are submitting to Dildolech but I call them like I see them. If you are not, provide the scriptural basis for moral acceptance of homosexuality and SSM.

Hence “Judge not, that ye be not judged,” and “let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” Jesus urges us explicitly to be very careful whom we judge and with whom we pick fights; the dubious pleasures of self-righteousness are unchristian in themselves.

The last refuge of a heretic is to invoke misinterpretations in the Bible against judging. Because, after all, no Christian ever makes moral judgements and judging is bad. Very, very, bad. That’s why the world hates us so much. And Christ and the Apostles never rebuked anyone, anywhere. Just like when Christ chose not to rebuke the money changers in the temple. And nowhere in the Bible does Christ or the Apostles rebuke false prophets. (In case you can’t tell, I’m being sarcastic).

I don’t know how self righteous I consider myself to be. I consider myself to be very insignificant and extremely unimportant. I certainly don’t like placing myself above other. There are things that are very dear to me, things that are far, far, far more important that I am that I wish to protect. That’s why I fight.

grumpy realist says: September 24, 2015 at 9:17 pm P.S. Jeff–isn’t it somewhat arrogant saying you know who serves God and who doesn’t?

No, not at all. Individuals, sects, and/or denomination that reject biblical authority don’t serve God. The Episcopal Church has clearly rejected biblical authority. This is not a hard call to make.

I’m sure I could root around and find statements from some other religious sect of Christianity who was equally convinced that they were Absolutely Correct and that it was YOU that were the heretics and should be convicted and “carried out to the place of execution and have the head cut off from the shoulders so that the spirit depart forthwith.” Or burned at the stake–another very popular remedy.

In fact, I’ve described about 1000 years of European history right there.

Please provide a current list of Christian sects and/or denominations that practice and/or condone executions for heresy. By the way, murder and torture has no biblical basis.

Of note, persecution of heretics is not a uniquely religious phenomenon. Secular/atheist governments routinely imprison, kill and torture political dissenters. Whatever sins Christians in the past may have committed, they pale in comparison to the crimes committed by atheist governments (e.g. USSR, Maoist China, etc). And Christian crimes occurred long ago whereas atheist crimes are ongoing today.

In addition, most of the humane legal protections (freedom of speech, no cruel and unusual punishment, habeus corpus) that we enjoy today are products of Christian societies. It is atheist leftist who are seeking to undermine the 1st Amendment in order to imprison political dissenters (i.e. those who commit the thought crime of hate speech).

(sigh). Righteous Christians might get a bit more of a hearing if they toned down the righteousness a bit, listened more than they spoke, carefully considered the arguments of the other side, and contemplated more the possibility that they might be wrong and not the ones in charge of policing everyone else’s morals.

By responding to my post you actually gave me a hearing. Note that churches like PCUSA, ELCA, and The Episcopal Church, which have embraced liberalism, are “inclusive,” “open minded,” and devoid of “hate” are in decline.

So why is it that you and your kind haven’t given these churches a hearing? If having Christianity without the “hate” is what you want, why haven’t liberals flocked to these churches?

Chastising other members of your own congregation is one thing. Chastising other people who aren’t even your religion turns you into a meddling holier-than-thou busybody.

Since The Episcopal Church purports to be Christian, they are still in my religion. Therefore I have the duty to rebuke them. If they were to officially change to The Episcopal Church of Dildolech (which they are for all intents and purposes), I would find no reason to chastise them.

Your answer on the usury question is facile and false, ignoring 1200 years of Church tradition and understanding of Scripture. It’s just tradition and Scripture you don’t care about–the parable of the Good Samaritan answers your embrace of the charging of interest to outsiders quite simply. And it’s not diversionary to ask if you apply the metric you fault the Episcopal Church for failing yourself.

But I’m done. You start slinging words like “satanic” and “vile” and you are simply not someone with whom I will engage. I wish you well, but see no point in conversing with you.

Anglocat says: September 25, 2015 at 4:06 pm Jeff, Your answer on the usury question is facile and false, ignoring 1200 years of Church tradition and understanding of Scripture. It’s just tradition and Scripture you don’t care about–the parable of the Good Samaritan answers your embrace of the charging of interest to outsiders quite simply. And it’s not diversionary to ask if you apply the metric you fault the Episcopal Church for failing yourself. But I’m done. You start slinging words like “satanic” and “vile” and you are simply not someone with whom I will engage. I wish you well, but see no point in conversing with you.

Sorry, but you haven’t engaged me on anything. To engaged in a discussion would have required for you to bring facts and objective evidence to back up your assertions. You haven’t brought anything to the table. Therefore, this is no loss on my end.

By the way. The parable of The Good Samaritan has nothing to do with money lending and interest. It’s about mercy and charity.